Macho v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

Filing 8

ORDER DISMISSING CASE. Signed by Judge William Alsup on 1/27/12. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(dt, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/27/2012)

1
2
3
4
5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

BENJAMIN MACHO,

NO. C 11-5720 WHA (PR)

9

Plaintiff,

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

v.
JAMES D. HARTLEY, Warden;
SMETHERS, Correctional Counselor,

12

(Docket No. 4)
Defendants.

13

/

14
INTRODUCTION
15
Plaintiff, an California prisoner, filed a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C.
16
1983 against officials at the Correctional Training Facility (“CTF”). Plaintiff is granted leave to
17
18

proceed in forma pauperis in a separate order. The complaint is reviewed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
1915A and Dismissed for failure to state a cognizable claim for relief.

19
20

ANALYSIS
A.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

21
Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek
22
redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C.
23
1915A(a). In its review the court must identify any cognizable claims, and dismiss any claims
24
which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seek
25
monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Id. at 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro
26
se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699
27
(9th Cir. 1990).
28
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only "a short and plain statement of the

1

claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." "Specific facts are not necessary; the

2

statement need only '"give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . . claim is and the grounds

3

upon which it rests."'" Erickson v. Pardus, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007) (citations omitted).

4

Although in order to state a claim a complaint “does not need detailed factual allegations, . . . a

5

plaintiff's obligation to provide the 'grounds of his 'entitle[ment] to relief' requires more than

6

labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not

7

do. . . . Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative

8

level." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007) (citations omitted). A

9

complaint must proffer "enough facts to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face." Id.
at 1974.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements:

12

(1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2)

13

that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law.

14

West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

15

B.

LEGAL CLAIMS

16

Plaintiff alleges that he gave defendant Smethers an envelope containing a federal civil

17

rights complaint and a motion for appointment of counsel for mailing to federal court. Plaintiff

18

complains that Smethers failed to seal the envelope in Plaintiff’s presence, in violation of his

19

First Amendment right to send confidential legal mail to court.

20

Inspecting or reading "legal mail," including mail sent from a prisoner to court, outside

21

the presence of the prisoner may have an impermissible "chilling" effect on the constitutional

22

right to petition the government. See O'Keefe v. Van Boening, 82 F.3d 322, 325 (9th Cir. 1996)

23

(citing Laird v. Tatum, 408 U.S. 1, 11 (1972)). Nor may "legal mail" may be read or copied

24

without the prisoner's permission. See Casey v. Lewis, 43 F.3d 1261, 1269 (9th Cir. 1994),

25

rev'd on other grounds, 518 U.S. 343 (1996). Here, however, defendants are not alleged to

26

have inspected, read or copied plaintiff’s legal mail. There is no constitutional requirement that

27

Smethers seal the envelope in plaintiff’s presence. As long as he did not read, inspect, or copy

28

plaintiff’s mail, which he is not alleged to have done, Smethers did not impinge upon plaintiff’s
2

1

First Amendment rights. There are no allegations as to any conduct by the other named

2

defendant, Warden Hartley. Consequently, plaintiff has failed to state a cognizable claim for

3

relief.
CONCLUSION

4
5
6

For the reasons set out above, This case is DISMISSED for failure to state a cognizable
claim for relief. The motion for appointment of counsel (docket number 4) is DENIED.

7

The clerk shall enter judgment and close the file.

8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9
Dated: January

27

, 2012.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15
G:\PRO-SE\WHA\CR.11\MACHO5720.DSM.wpd

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3